[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Tero,

On 9/27/13 11:55 AM, Tero Toikkanen wrote:
>>> These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things
>>> seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if others
>>> think the same, we could change the limits.
>>
>> If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to
>> be counter-intuitive.
>
> I agree. We should propose /48 as the _minimum_ allocation for all special purposes, maybe with possible provisions for more.

currently the policy states that the minimum allocation is a /32 and 
LIRs can request up to a /29 with no questions asked, this policy 
proposal does not intend to change that minimum.

>
>> Aside from the difference between "ever need more" and "foreseeable
>> future", this means that End Users will need to decide between /48 and
>> /32. To pick a specific example, FOSDEM will apply for IPv6 PI soon.
>> As they need more than one single /48, under that policy the seem to
>> be _forced_ to a /32.
>>
>> With a corporate hat on, I think it highly unlikely that anyone
>> manager or sales person will be content with less than the absolute
>> maximum they can get even if they don't need it. So save for a few
>> corporations and maybe temporary allocations, I suspect everyone will
>> go for a /32.
>
> I agree that the either /48 with no room for expansion or /32 is too strict. I would go as far as to propose that End Users could request anything from /48 to /32 and also be limited to that. However, this may have implications on address reservations in RIPE, as was the case with LIRs being allocated a /32 but reserved a /29. So if to avoid renumbering and to encourage aggregation we end up allocating /48s, but reserving a /32 for each one, we probably will end up at the same point again.

If someone is sure that they will not need more than a /48, ever, then 
they can request that /48. If they have any plans to make 
sub-allocations, then they can receive the /32 and use it for the rest 
of their life.

Creating different levels/limits will complicate the policy again and 
our aim was to make it as simple as possible.

- small allocations - /48
- large allocations - /32 or more

>
> Furthermore, as the "LIR incentive", I'd restrict End User allocations to a /32. If you need more, you should become an LIR.

I don't think adding this limitation will work. If someone does not want 
to become an LIR, they will simply setup a new company (it costs 50€ in 
most of Europe) and get an other /32 on that company's name.

So, I don't think that limiting the size of the allocation the End 
User/Sub-LIR can receive is a good idea.

cheers,
elvis